slackjawed
Self deported
I might jump out if it was miller. The fact is if it is my boat I might just make him walk the plank......
9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?
- Thread starter PhysicsExist
- Start date
I might jump out if it was miller. The fact is if it is my boat I might just make him walk the plank......
lol
my point being it would be enough to make you give up the boat just to be away from it
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
That was directed at candycorn, but as long as you're being made the subject of this as well, I'll point out that you devote a majority of your time on here to insulting conspiracy theorists for being conspiracy theorists. Something about them obviously touches a nerve with you, and I really can't wrap my mind around what it is, or why.
The very thing you hate about them, you perpetuate by continually going tit for tat with them.
Every fucking post you make to them is counter-productive to your otherwise obvious desire for them to just shut up about their theories and go away.
You can say it's just entertainment, but I don't buy it. I've watched these debates go on for years now. People like you HATE conspiracy theorists.
I'd hate to live a life where every damn day I'm so bothered by what someone I don't even know believes, that I feel the need to expend a significant portion of my energy to it for the purpose of coping.
slackjawed
Self deported
lol
my point being it would be enough to make you give up the boat just to be away from it
LOL, I have to admit your probably right.
Although if miller went around this town saying some of the insane bullshit he says on here, and people found out he was from new england and wrote a book.......he likely wouldn't make it out of the lake anyway.
slackjawed
Self deported
Actually I don't hate conspiracy theorists as a rule, and they don't bother me they amuse me-most of the time.
In the winter i get so damn bored I have to find something to do. The livestock is off the mountain in and in my pasture, hunting season is over. It's too damn cold to hike lately. The snow on the mountain is too deep to ride, so I amuse myself tormenting twoofers.
I do engage in amusing and heated discussions with my buddies in town. Bill Cooper came from my town, I knew him. Conspiracy theorists are all over this area. They might be nuts, but when I need them they are there for me, and likewise me for them.
Again, I invite you to our VFW on fri nights, unless there is a band, thats what the whole bar is talking about-conspiracy theories.
On New Years eve, Travis Walton was there and entertained us with his UFO stories.....as long as we bought him flat tire ales...
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
I lived in CO for a while. I never liked Fat Tire.
I also spent some time in AZ, and can't imagine there not being something interesting to do at any time.
Weed is cheap there. Go smoke a joint and do something productive for crying out loud.
Liability
Locked Account.
Because getting wasted on some rope is clearly associated with productivity....
Patriot911
Rookie
- Banned
- #408
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a LOT of contempt for conspiracy theorists who insist on ignoring evidence that disproves their theories. I call them truthtards, but they are called by various other names. Why shouldn't I insult them when they use the deaths of 3000 Americans to push an anti-<fill in bad guy here> agenda?
Contempt doesn't equal hate, though. I don't hate truthtards. I don't wish evil upon them or anything like that. Do I wish they would shut up? No. I don't believe in stifling free speech. I do believe if a person is going to take an ignorant position that they should be prepared to receive a raftload of shit for it, though.
Regardless, I don't write here or anywhere else to try and convince truthtards of anything. Convincing truthtards their theories are bullshit isn't possible because I firmly believe truthtards know and understand their theories are bullshit. To truthtards, though, the truth never seems to get in the way of pushing the agenda.
So instead of trying to actually convince them of anything, I expose their silly theories and lies for people who like to read these forums. Without someone to defend the truth as defined by the evidence, lies can take root. In all honesty, though, there have been some truthtards that have seen the light and decided their boogieman of choice wasn't really behind 9/11. When that happens, all is forgiven and apologies are given.
Now, if you're a conspiracy theorist who likes to debate but looks at all the evidence, that doesn't make you a truthtard. I've had debates with conspiracy theorists who were willing to look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that backed up their theories. There was no need for name calling or getting ugly.
BTW, truthtards don't go away simply because everyone ignores them. They just start spamming other forum areas until they get the attention they desire.
As for balls, I've confronted infowars supporters several times at tea party gatherings and I've pretty much stated there what I state here. They didn't want to get into it.
Even they know their bullshit sucks and can't really stand up to real time debate. Without conspiracy sites to tell them what they think, they are fairly incapable of real time debate.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a LOT of contempt for conspiracy theorists who insist on ignoring evidence that disproves their theories. I call them truthtards, but they are called by various other names. Why shouldn't I insult them when they use the deaths of 3000 Americans to push an anti-<fill in bad guy here> agenda?
Contempt doesn't equal hate, though. I don't hate truthtards. I don't wish evil upon them or anything like that. Do I wish they would shut up? No. I don't believe in stifling free speech. I do believe if a person is going to take an ignorant position that they should be prepared to receive a raftload of shit for it, though.
Regardless, I don't write here or anywhere else to try and convince truthtards of anything. Convincing truthtards their theories are bullshit isn't possible because I firmly believe truthtards know and understand their theories are bullshit. To truthtards, though, the truth never seems to get in the way of pushing the agenda.
So instead of trying to actually convince them of anything, I expose their silly theories and lies for people who like to read these forums. Without someone to defend the truth as defined by the evidence, lies can take root. In all honesty, though, there have been some truthtards that have seen the light and decided their boogieman of choice wasn't really behind 9/11. When that happens, all is forgiven and apologies are given.
Now, if you're a conspiracy theorist who likes to debate but looks at all the evidence, that doesn't make you a truthtard. I've had debates with conspiracy theorists who were willing to look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that backed up their theories. There was no need for name calling or getting ugly.
BTW, truthtards don't go away simply because everyone ignores them. They just start spamming other forum areas until they get the attention they desire.
As for balls, I've confronted infowars supporters several times at tea party gatherings and I've pretty much stated there what I state here. They didn't want to get into it.
And then you get these little worms like this "PhysicsExist" character who makes up excuses to call people a coward because we don't believe his bullshit... BTW where is the little worm today?
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #410
How many times do i have to Post facts and for you to ignore them and say they are excuses?
OPEN YOUR MIND.
Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:
“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
REFERENCES
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
THIS IS A FACT
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].
THIS IS A FACT
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
STOP AVOIDING THE FACTS.
OPEN YOUR MIND.
Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:
“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
REFERENCES
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
THIS IS A FACT
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].
THIS IS A FACT
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
STOP AVOIDING THE FACTS.
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #411
http://buildingwhat.org/destruction-of-evidence/
Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:
“[A] person ‘renders criminal assistance’ when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime…he…suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;”
OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE WTC
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”
Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”
CONTROL OF THE WTC CLEANUP
In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and investigations was not followed. According to the New York Times:[v]
“In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.
“‘They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,’ said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.”
New York City’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani’s “back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed”:[vi]
“[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.”
DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the need to preserve the evidence:[vii]
“Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.”
By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed from the site,[viii] in what one journalist with unrestricted access to the site called, “the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.”[ix]
THE DECISION TO DESTROY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton:[x]
“[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added for emphasis]
However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xi]
“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”
By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.
Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel – raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.
THE CONTINUED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY
In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the public to halt its recycling of the steel. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xii]
“The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the victims’ families. On December 14, nearly three months after the program had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City Hall protesting the recycling decision. Her son, Christian, a firefighter, had died in the towers’ collapse. ‘We’re here today to call for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,’ she said.”
The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering community. Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1, 2002:[xiii]
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”
Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xiv]
“Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.”
Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? The outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel again raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.
REFERENCES
New York Penal – Article 205, §205.5 Hindering Prosecution. New York Penal - Article 205 - § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution; Definition of Term - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws
[ii] Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002. p.14. Learning From 9/11--Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
[iii] Ibid. p. 185.
[iv] The History Channel, Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13, 2004. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8[/ame]
[v] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com
[vi] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 66, 118.
[vii] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.299.
[viii] David Sapsted, The Daily Telegraph, “250 Tons of Scrap Stolen from Ruins,” September 28, 2001. Telegraph | News
[ix] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 146.
[x] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.330.
[xi] Ibid. p.331.
[xii] Ibid. p.332.
[xiii] Bill Manning, Fire Engineering, “$elling Out The Investigation,” January 1, 2002. $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION - Fire Engineering
[xiv] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com
Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:
“[A] person ‘renders criminal assistance’ when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime…he…suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;”
OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE WTC
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”
Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”
CONTROL OF THE WTC CLEANUP
In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and investigations was not followed. According to the New York Times:[v]
“In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.
“‘They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,’ said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.”
New York City’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani’s “back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed”:[vi]
“[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.”
DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the need to preserve the evidence:[vii]
“Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.”
By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed from the site,[viii] in what one journalist with unrestricted access to the site called, “the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.”[ix]
THE DECISION TO DESTROY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton:[x]
“[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added for emphasis]
However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xi]
“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”
By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.
Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel – raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.
THE CONTINUED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY
In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the public to halt its recycling of the steel. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xii]
“The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the victims’ families. On December 14, nearly three months after the program had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City Hall protesting the recycling decision. Her son, Christian, a firefighter, had died in the towers’ collapse. ‘We’re here today to call for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,’ she said.”
The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering community. Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1, 2002:[xiii]
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”
Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xiv]
“Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.”
Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? The outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel again raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.
REFERENCES
New York Penal – Article 205, §205.5 Hindering Prosecution. New York Penal - Article 205 - § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution; Definition of Term - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws
[ii] Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002. p.14. Learning From 9/11--Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
[iii] Ibid. p. 185.
[iv] The History Channel, Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13, 2004. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8[/ame]
[v] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com
[vi] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 66, 118.
[vii] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.299.
[viii] David Sapsted, The Daily Telegraph, “250 Tons of Scrap Stolen from Ruins,” September 28, 2001. Telegraph | News
[ix] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 146.
[x] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.330.
[xi] Ibid. p.331.
[xii] Ibid. p.332.
[xiii] Bill Manning, Fire Engineering, “$elling Out The Investigation,” January 1, 2002. $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION - Fire Engineering
[xiv] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com
Last edited:
Patriot911
Rookie
- Banned
- #412
It is a FACT you are full of bullshit and refuse to look at the FACTS! When are you going to stop avoiding the facts and explain how massive explosions didn't register on audio, yet one can clearly hear the collapse.
It is YOUR claim all the columns had to be cut simultaniously, so you can take your claims of "active thermitic compound" and shove them straight up your ass. Thermitic compounds work through heat. You can't cut with heat quickly. Period. That is another FACT you will ignore in your quest to be the greatest truthtard ever. And if you can't cut with heat quickly, that leaves high explosives; the kind used by controlled demolitions crews the world over. They cut with pressure and can do so in milliseconds. Perfect for timing the destruction of columns to bring down a building like they want instead of randomly.
But the same high pressure wave that cuts steel can also be heard for miles. Many such pressure waves are going to be heard as a VERY loud explosion.
Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.
Every audio tape of every controlled demolition I have seen has the explosions from the demolition MANY TIMES louder than the collapse.
Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.
The sound couldn't be muffled by the collapse. The explosives have to go off BEFORE the collapse.
Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.
You have two witnesses who claim to hear explosions, but there are contradicting witnesses who clearly didn't hear explosives. Witnesses can lie. Witnesses can be mistaken. Witnesses will always be trumped by hard evidence such as audio tapes.
Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.
Why? Because there were no explosives going off in WTC 7. That is a FACT. There is ZERO EVIDENCE of explosives. That is a FACT. A reporter with a clear view of WTC 7 from only a few blocks away doesn't capture anything even as loud as a firecracker. That is a FACT. And you can't even claim the audio was messed with because you also have the reaction of the people. When people hear an explosion, they react. When people hear something unusual like the deep rumble of a building collapsing, they look around. What did all the people do? They looked around. They didn't jump. They didn't startle. They looked. That is a FACT.
So take your own advice and stop avoiding the facts. We both know you can't explain the complete absence of sound. We both know your theory is absolutely worthless without being able to explain the video and the complete lack of evidence of what you claim HAD to happen.
Sucks to be a truthtard these days!
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Same old arguments.
Problem is it took them 5 years to find this so called explosive residue.....
And the top of the building did not remain intact and uncrumpled, the penthouse was the first thing to go.
You may now attempt to fit those facts into your Bullshit.
Patriot911
Rookie
- Banned
- #414
Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again. I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them. Not when he can't even explain why there is no sound of a massive explosion mere blocks from WTC 7 when the collapse is clearly audible.
Not when he can't even explain why there is no sound of a massive explosion mere blocks from WTC 7 when the collapse is clearly audible.
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #415
It took the govt until Nov 2008 to release their fake report. And you're worried that it took 5 years to find explosives? Shouldn't it be they should NEVER find explosives?
Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:
“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
REFERENCES
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
You cannot address these facts because you are in denial.
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #416
Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again. I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them.
Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:
“[A] person ‘renders criminal assistance’ when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime…he…suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;”
OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE WTC
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
http://buildingwhat.org/destruction-of-evidence/
Don't avoid the facts, you are a distraction Patriot 911
Last edited:
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
And in 7 years, (Nearly 10 now) the primary and only official investigators found no evidence of explosives. Now what about the penthouse? Sort of throws your top of the building remaining intact out the window don't it.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again. I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them.
It is the twoofer's only hope, repeat the lies over and over and hope some of it sticks. I personally think that is what happened with these "85 videos" that supposedly have been confiscated.
I still haven't seen any admission of possession of the videos or credible proof otherwise.
I think it was just repeated long enough and loud enough to be "accepted".
psikeyhackr
Silver Member
- Jul 18, 2010
- 1,314
- 182
- 98
Number 4 thru 7 are unimportant to the obvious absurdity of 9/11
Collapse time estimates for WTC 1 & 2 are from 8.4 to 11 seconds which was specified in a podcast on PBS by Dr. Sunder of the NIST.
Create a computer program for the collapse time of 109 masses floating magically in the air with no supports and have the masses fall when struck from above and accelerate due to the conservation of momentum and the computed collapse time is about 12 seconds. So any supports strong enough to support the masses could only slow the collapse further.
People claiming to know physics should have been all over the phenomenon of 9/11 like white on rice.
After NINE YEARS this issue involves our engineering schools even more than the people who did it. For all practical purposes they are accomplices after the fact. How can they claim to know how to teach people to design skyscrapers if they won't bring up the subject of the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC and how it would have to affect any collapse.
But I asked Richard Gage about that in Chicago in May of 2008. He got a shocked look on his face and gave the LAME excuse of the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. It is gravity and wind loading that determines how the steel would have to be distributed and whatever safety factor is incorporated into the building. So Gage and his buddies should have been able to come up with reasonably good numbers even without blueprints.
So it is too late for this simple physics to keep a lot of people from looking like fools. All they can do is keep people from understanding the simple physics by pretending it is so difficult.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo[/ame]
So when is an engineering school going to build a model that can collapse completely?
The Truth Movement just concentrates on too much irrelevant junk. The physics does not care who did it. But the physics can tell if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have done it.
9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.
psik
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #420
All I talk about is physics, and occasionally post another thread that shows corroborating evidence to go along with the Physics that prove WTC7 needs to be reinvestigated.
BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is exactly the type of movement that avoids theories and ONLY sticks to Facts. Such as the FACT of freefall in WTC7
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
They ignore these facts, and only obscure and create problems. The people who deny the facts are in denial, and some even actually are cowardly enough to say the facts are "fake".
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
New Topics
-
trump takes his pogrom on brown people and women international- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 0
-
Fan sues NFL for $100 million over Shedeur Sanders' draft slide, citing 'emotional distress and trauma'- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 0
-
Biden appointed Federal judge orders Trump admin to immediately resettle 12K migrants
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 1
-
